You can be happy with your rights being removed, but I will not allow my God given rights to be taken. Funny that you are ok losing your semi-autos, then have a picture of a "Wolverine" with a...semi-auto...

Haha, I couldn't find a good pic with a hunting rifle. And that's probably full-auto.

I don't need a semi auto to hunt, and I'm pretty quick with a lever. I really show those empty beer cans who's boss!

I don't think they're really God given....more like Constitutionally given. However, if you feel like they are god given, then I doubt I will change your mind. Listen, I don't want to change your mind. But you must admit, there is a huge abyss between the thoughts of the far left and far right. If we all don't compromise, no ground can be gained. How long will we argue without progress?

If I lost my handgun and semi-auto rifles, and was able to protect my family from criminals/nutjobs with an acceptable taser, I'd be happy.

And while I wouldn't be capable of a platoon assault on the white house, my plethora of open sight lever actions and scope mounted bolt actions would still allow me to join the Wolverines and mount a defense against a red dawn-esque attack.

You can't really expect that average citizens can arm themselves in any comparable fashion to a real army, whether they are US or USSR. But we are still incredibly numerous as an armed civilian population. Any ground assault on America would have its hands full.

I think that satisfies what you are looking to protect with the 2nd amend.

Just FYI, they weren't really worried so much about foreign invaders as domestic "caretakers." And it's not about going toe to toe with a field army. The founders never really saw it that way either.

And I'm probably less well-armed than you are (from the sounds of it ) I just hate the constant push to rewrite clear history.

I don't think they're really God given....more like Constitutionally given. However, if you feel like they are god given, then I doubt I will change your mind. Listen, I don't want to change your mind. But you must admit, there is a huge abyss between the thoughts of the far left and far right. If we all don't compromise, no ground can be gained. How long will we argue without progress?

The Constitution doesn't grant any rights, it merely stipulates those inalienable rights endowed by our Creator. The Founders' words there, and there are a plethora of quotes from them to know the intent. If our rights are not "granted" by government, then government does not have the authority to take them away. Whether or not a person is religious, that should be good news.

Do I allow a compromise on this? Or, even though this is an "authority" figure, do I resist, and violently if necessary?

Before anyone poo-poos the example, things like that happen in despotic countries, and the freedoms we take for granted are historically the exception, not the rule. I will resist every effort to strip away those freedoms.

I think it's a moot point, whether or not individuals can keep guns. I see no reason not to restrict gun ownership to bolt action rifles, 3 shot shotguns, and revolvers. That certainly doesn't violate the Constitution. The idea that you are going to fight off the government is ludicrous, on its face, so we have to rely on other ways to keep the government from becoming tyrannical.

Frankly, I'm more worried about corporate control of the government and the effects of Citizens United. The next tyranny might not be a militaristic one that you fight with bullets. Maybe it will be based solely on economics and credit control? Don't play along and you get removed from the game. Maybe it will be social? A Facebook tyranny? "Why do you have this distasteful statement in your status, Mr. Citizen? We may have to remove you and of course, Mr. Employer won't hire you if you don't have a profile he can look at, or a good credit rating. Oh, and you can forget about buying a house." What matters individuality when you have been swallowed up in the herd?

Also, what worries me more is the corporatization of our military; Private enterprise taking over military functions. An army of citizens might not fire on those who they consider their own brethren (especially if the people revolt over issues shared by military members, as we saw in Egypt), but would an international, private military force have any qualms about taking orders from their employer? The Romans started hiring out their military duties. Look what happened to them? Perhaps those sitting on their basement arsenals are looking in the wrong direction while their freedoms erode away right under their noses? While they look out for the commie tank to come over the hill, their freedoms are losing their potency, one by one, as the freedom of individuality disappears.

I think it's a moot point, whether or not individuals can keep guns. I see no reason not to restrict gun ownership to bolt action rifles, 3 shot shotguns, and revolvers. That certainly doesn't violate the Constitution. The idea that you are going to fight off the government is ludicrous, on its face, so we have to rely on other ways to keep the government from becoming tyrannical.

Really? If it would be so easy here, why do we have so much trouble controlling unarmed 3rd world countries?

I just learned that one of the little girls went to a school near our house last year in kindergarten before her family moved back east this year. Everyone is so heartbroken over this.

I'm so grateful that my wife is willing to homeschool our two youngest and supervise our older one in her cyber schooling. I thought she had lost her mind at first taking on such a challenge. But I've come to see the overwhelmingly positive results and benefits. And I know they are safe and actually learning something.

The Constitution doesn't grant any rights, it merely stipulates those inalienable rights endowed by our Creator. The Founders' words there, and there are a plethora of quotes from them to know the intent. If our rights are not "granted" by government, then government does not have the authority to take them away. Whether or not a person is religious, that should be good news.

Do I allow a compromise on this? Or, even though this is an "authority" figure, do I resist, and violently if necessary?

Before anyone poo-poos the example, things like that happen in despotic countries, and the freedoms we take for granted are historically the exception, not the rule. I will resist every effort to strip away those freedoms.

Please quote for me anywhere in the US Constitution where it says that any rights are God-given.

The Declaration of Independence, which you are quoting, has no legal authority. Period. It can't be cited as precedent. It is not legally binding in any way.

There is absolutely no mention of or reference to God, creation, or anything else along those lines in the Constitution, except, of course, about how the State must separate itself from religion.

So yes, legally, your rights are granted by the Constitution, which you can actually go look at in Washington DC. Not by some being that may or may not exist.

You can be happy with your rights being removed, but I will not allow my God given rights to be taken. Funny that you are ok losing your semi-autos, then have a picture of a "Wolverine" with a...semi-auto...

Actually it is an assault weapon as it has the ability to switch to full auto...just saying.

It was an off-duty police officer working security and in uniform. As a former theater manager, it's a great idea to have traine law enforcement armed and in uniform. Not some yahoo with a CCL.

Yeah, because the uniform and the sign that said "gun-free zone"is what stopped the shooter......point is there was no waiting on the cops...and like those stats say average victims during shooting spree stopped after police are called 14.3...average number when stopped by armed citizens 2.1

Or are you seriously going to try and convince people that she wouldn't have done likewise if she was just a customer with a CCL

Yeah, because the uniform and the sign that said "gun-free zone"is what stopped the shooter......point is there was no waiting on the cops...and like those stats say average victims during shooting spree stopped after police are called 14.3...average number when stopped by armed citizens 2.1

Or are you seriously going to try and convince people that she wouldn't have done likewise if she was just a customer with a CCL

She wouldn't have been "just a customer". She would have been an off-duty cop...you know, a paid professional.

She wouldn't have been "just a customer". She would have been an off-duty cop...you know, a paid professional.

You act like the only person who can save someone from drowning is a life guard that is either on or off duty....guess no need for any average Joe to perform CPR either since they too aren't paid professionals.

You still miss the point clown.....the fact is that someone else (the good guy) other than the criminal shooter (the bad guy) had a gun and used it to save lives.

You think the people this idiot was gunning for care if it was an off duty cop or a private citizen with a CCL that saved their life?

You act like the only person who can save someone from drowning is a life guard that is either on or off duty....guess no need for any average Joe to perform CPR either since they too aren't paid professionals.

You still miss the point clown.....the fact is that someone else (the good guy) other than the criminal shooter (the bad guy) had a gun and used it to save lives.

You think the people this idiot was gunning for care if it was an off duty cop or a private citizen with a CCL that saved their life?

When someone performs CPR on a drowning victim, what are the chances that they're accidentally going to harm an innocent bystander?

If an EMT arrives on the scene, what are the chances that the person performing CPR is going to be killed accidentally by the EMT?

And this is all discussing situations where there is an actual active shooter. More or less unmentioned in this conversation thus far is the potential for an armed citizen to attempt to stop an active shooter when one doesn't exist. A school was put on lockdown the other day because four kids were playing with a long umbrella. What happens when an armed citizen sees something like that and decides to draw? Is the inevitable accidental shooting acceptable collateral damage for your right to pretend like there's still a gold rush out west?

Cops shoot people whom they think are armed, and it turns out they're holding a soda can. Cops. Trained professionals. No way I want some guy with an itchy trigger finger pulling a weapon on someone who isn't doing anything wrong.

Please quote for me anywhere in the US Constitution where it says that any rights are God-given.

The Declaration of Independence, which you are quoting, has no legal authority. Period. It can't be cited as precedent. It is not legally binding in any way.

There is absolutely no mention of or reference to God, creation, or anything else along those lines in the Constitution, except, of course, about how the State must separate itself from religion.

So yes, legally, your rights are granted by the Constitution, which you can actually go look at in Washington DC. Not by some being that may or may not exist.

So....you then advocate that our rights come from government then? So when government says you have no right to have children without their permission (China for instance), you will bow down and say "yes massa!", because government said so?

You sir are clearly ready to be enslaved. I recommend instead that you break free of your intellectual bondage, embrace the idea that any government only has power by consent of the governed.

No piece of paper gave us our rights, that piece of paper only acknowledges that our rights are inalienable.....inherit because we are...and demands that any government respect those self-evident truths.

The choice before us all:

Freedom, self-determination, with all of the inherent responsibilities, or

surrender your security to the bureacratic powers, and hope they will always be benevolent

I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court has referenced the Declaration for precedent on more than one occasion.

While the Supreme Court may reference the Declaration of Independence in a decision, please remember that the responsibility of the Supreme Court is to determine whether something is constitutional.

They may use the Declaration as a guide for interpreting certain situations and determining how the Constitution applies to a given case. But the only legal document the Supreme Court is concerned about is the Constitution. At the end of the day, all the bills passed, all the executive orders issued by the executive branch, all of the regulations issued by the various agencies and departments are nothing more than items fleshing out as detailed in the Constitution, which is why the Supreme Court exists in the first place. Their only job is to make sure that local, state and federal governments are operating within the bounds of the US Constitution. The only thing the Supreme Court is bound to is the Constitution. Not even their own precedent is legally binding on them.

The way you can see this very clearly is to look at Plessy v. Ferguson, which was overturned by Brown v. Board of Education. If precedent were legally binding, it would have taken an Amendment to the Constitution to take effect. Most often, Supreme Court justices who claim to follow an originalist or strict interpretation of the Constitution use the Declaration as a primary source document to help them infer the Founders' opinions on situations not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. It's not precedent in the sense of previous case law, and previous case law isn't even legally binding. The Court likes observe stare decisis in most situations in order to preserve some sort of consistency, but that's a function of court procedure and tradition, not the legal framework of how the court actually works. In many cases, the most important decisions the Court has handed down are instances where they have abandoned stare decisis all together (cf. Brown v. Board, Roe v. Wade, Bush v. Gore, Lawrence v. Texas, etc.)

At the end of the day, the Supreme Court makes a decision based off what the Constitution says, not what the Declaration of Independence or any other document says.

With all that said, you have to ask yourself why, if the idea that rights are God-given were so important to the Framers, that they completely left God out of the actual document.

So....you then advocate that our rights come from government then? So when government says you have no right to have children without their permission (China for instance), you will bow down and say "yes massa!", because government said so?

You sir are clearly ready to be enslaved. I recommend instead that you break free of your intellectual bondage, embrace the idea that any government only has power by consent of the governed.

No piece of paper gave us our rights, that piece of paper only acknowledges that our rights are inalienable.....inherit because we are...and demands that any government respect those self-evident truths.

The choice before us all:

Freedom, self-determination, with all of the inherent responsibilities, or

surrender your security to the bureacratic powers, and hope they will always be benevolent

Are you familiar with the term "check and balances"?

The sky isn't falling. We're not China, nor will we ever be. Our system of government was designed explicitly to prevent that from happening.

And if I recall correctly, the last time someone attempted to throw off the shackles of government, the government had something to say about it, and won the argument handily on the battlefield. If you want to talk about precedent, if that doesn't dismiss the idea that the Second Amendment was designed so that we can just take up arms against our government, I don't know what does.

While the Supreme Court may reference the Declaration of Independence in a decision, please remember that the responsibility of the Supreme Court is to determine whether something is constitutional.

They may use the Declaration as a guide for interpreting certain situations and determining how the Constitution applies to a given case. But the only legal document the Supreme Court is concerned about is the Constitution. At the end of the day, all the bills passed, all the executive orders issued by the executive branch, all of the regulations issued by the various agencies and departments are nothing more than items fleshing out as detailed in the Constitution, which is why the Supreme Court exists in the first place. Their only job is to make sure that local, state and federal governments are operating within the bounds of the US Constitution. The only thing the Supreme Court is bound to is the Constitution. Not even their own precedent is legally binding on them.

The way you can see this very clearly is to look at Plessy v. Ferguson, which was overturned by Brown v. Board of Education. If precedent were legally binding, it would have taken an Amendment to the Constitution to take effect. Most often, Supreme Court justices who claim to follow an originalist or strict interpretation of the Constitution use the Declaration as a primary source document to help them infer the Founders' opinions on situations not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. It's not precedent in the sense of previous case law, and previous case law isn't even legally binding. The Court likes observe stare decisis in most situations in order to preserve some sort of consistency, but that's a function of court procedure and tradition, not the legal framework of how the court actually works. In many cases, the most important decisions the Court has handed down are instances where they have abandoned stare decisis all together (cf. Brown v. Board, Roe v. Wade, Bush v. Gore, Lawrence v. Texas, etc.)

At the end of the day, the Supreme Court makes a decision based off what the Constitution says, not what the Declaration of Independence or any other document says.

With all that said, you have to ask yourself why, if the idea that rights are God-given were so important to the Framers, that they completely left God out of the actual document.

Sorry but what you're saying would also lead to the conclusion that "Separation of Church and State" is a fictional construct of the modern court. It is found nowhere in the document, therefore it has no legal standing.

The sky isn't falling. We're not China, nor will we ever be. Our system of government was designed explicitly to prevent that from happening.

And if I recall correctly, the last time someone attempted to throw off the shackles of government, the government had something to say about it, and won the argument handily on the battlefield. If you want to talk about precedent, if that doesn't dismiss the idea that the Second Amendment was designed so that we can just take up arms against our government, I don't know what does.

This makes zero sense. A war proved the citizenry had no right to arms? Interesting.